> > My immediate observation is that you're not really tracking the "owner"> > here - you're tracking an opaque 16-bit token known only to the block> > controller in a field which - if changed by anybody other than the block> > controller - will lead to mayhem in the block controller. I think it> > might be clearer - and safer - to say "blkcg" or some such instead of> > "owner" here.> > Basically the idea here was to be as generic as possible and make this> feature potentially available also to other subsystems, so that cgroup> subsystems may represent whatever they want with the 16-bit token.> However, no more than a single subsystem may be able to use this feature> at the same time.

That makes me nervous; it can't really be used that way unless we want tosay that certain controllers are fundamentally incompatible and can't beallowed to play together. For whatever my $0.02 are worth (given thestate of the US dollar, that's not a whole lot), I'd suggest keeping thecurrent mechanism, but make it clear that it belongs to your controller.If and when another controller comes along with a need for similarfunctionality, somebody can worry about making it more general.